Comment by Eji1700
8 hours ago
> It wasn't great, didn't age well, but it gave people a decent place to live.
This is, arguably, the big problem. Things akin to Commie blocks have been tried in non communist countries, but in general government run housing has this major issue of almost always winding up poorly budgeted and supported, so it quickly becomes a nightmare as tax payers don't want to foot the bills on some other persons housing, and it's extra ripe for corruption and corner cutting, and so on.
Not that it shouldn't be investigated (any option should be considered), but it does seem to be one of the big weaknesses. In theory if a private landlord/building owner breaks the law, you have recourse though the legal system (yes in theory), while if the government isn't living up to what it said it would do....well you tend to lack any option for recourse.
To be clear this is a disgustingly simplified summary of a subject I have at best a casual hobbyists knowledge of, but there seems to be an advantage to leaving housing in the realm of private so that you have the option of kicking them in the teeth with the government if they completely fuck up. As messy as that might be, the alternative seems to be messier.
Ironically, the thing we learned in the US about public housing is that it can't be in high-rise apartments. It has to be duplexes or small 1/2 story apartment buildings. It also must minimized all public space so that each part of the land "belongs" to one unit. If you don't do this, the public areas get messed up really quickly. This tends to lead to the rest of the residents being less willing to take care of the area and it all spirals from there.
The Soviet solution to this was 3 ft thick concrete walls but the crime and other problems that get created by public housing were never addressed there.